brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Linking to LEGO's instructions?
I think it would be useful to link to the instructions of sets at LEGO.com. They have newer ones (Peeron stops at 2007). Now, Im not proposing we stop linking to Peeron, but also, link to LEGO's. LEGO's can be found here and go back to themes like Paradisa and Time Cruisers, but also has Ninjago and Pharoah's Quest. On the downside is this. They are PDF's and as they link separately for different "booklets" (e.g. when a set has different parts of its instructions). On the plus side, it shows what theme LEGO would class the sets as (for instance, its has the recent Tower Bridge, Shuttle Adventure and so on as part of Creator (which would make the modular subtheme part of creator)) and also shine a bit more light on some of the rarer promotional items ---- Kingcjc 17:56, January 1, 2011 (UTC) :I'm fine with linking to that instruction page. Will we put the link into the External Links section? If yes, I'd propose we get a bot that removes the |Peeron number = and |Lugnet number = if they aren't used, they take up space and they are rarely used, only if there are several articles with the same number. They still can be added when they are really needed. I'd leave the |Instructions?(Y,N) = where it is (although we should have stated that we mean the Peeron instructions). 18:26, January 1, 2011 (UTC) * Support both comments. 19:07, January 1, 2011 (UTC) *:Working on template :) ---- Kingcjc 23:42, January 1, 2011 (UTC) * Its Template:Instructions ---- Kingcjc 01:40, January 2, 2011 (UTC) I don't think that we should not link to Peeron. Lugnet is unnecessary-I'm not sure if there is anything there that we can't get from brickset. Peeron has set inventories-if not peeron, then why not bricklink? Yes, it could be considered advertising, but bricklink has the best inventories, so we could link to the catalog page for the sets. 01:45, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :I'd say keep Peeron, don't see what Lugnet others these days though... ---- Kingcjc 12:25, January 2, 2011 (UTC) I think that since LEGO's instructions are for 2002-up models, we should put LEGO's on post-2002 and Peeron's for Pre-2002 models. EDFan12345 Don't roast them!• • 12:43, January 2, 2011 (UTC) LEGO goes back further than that. Peeron takes a lot more time to load, and not all the pages work when the page loads, so we should link to both. But a non-PDF pages has many benefits. 13:19, January 2, 2011 (UTC) : Template created and (thanks to Rappy 4187) it works quite simply. See Template:Instructions. It also adds pages to the hidden category Category:Sets that link to LEGO.com instructions. If their is no objections, I'll add it to pages tonight or tomorrow. ---- Kingcjc 20:38, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::Template's looking good, however do you know why there are three blank lines above it in the 30052 AAT page? (not sure which template's at fault here) 22:27, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :::I believe that has to do with the external links template above it (which could use a full re-write). If you guys want help sorting out these templates, drop a line on my talk page and I will look at them. Whoever wrote these templates really did them the hard way. Most templates like these should be automatic rather than requiring input. Also, they should use all lowercase text for parameters... not something like HasInstructions (Y/N)=N. Simply making the template utilize instructions = yes works wonders. I will watch this page and respond to feedback if you'd like help sorting out these templates. Rappy 00:12, January 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::If you wouldn't mind, that would be good. They really are complex codes :) ---- Kingcjc 13:00, January 3, 2011 (UTC) :::::Could you simplify the set template too? And the set header? We need to be able to add/modify a few things, and I don't know if any of us can do it. 14:25, January 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::::I won't be able to do it today, but I will have time tomorrow. List the templates here you wish for me to edit/simplify/rewrite and I will look into it. Rappy 22:55, January 3, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Wait Boba. I don't think there is anything wrong with the Template:Set, it shouldn't be changed. And the only thing I could think of which could be changed at the Template:Set header is that we still need to type at least the |after2= and |before2= when using it. If we could keep this option but don't have to type it, that would be great. 13:53, January 7, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::Wrong. We can't add more colours to the set template and the set header won't read non numbers. 13:56, January 7, 2011 (UTC) Request for closure, there seems to be consensus to do this, so let's do it :) 03:45, May 20, 2011 (UTC) :Before it's closed, I would like to support. Just as a little bit of confirmation that we should do it. xD - 15:56, May 20, 2011 (UTC)